Waze forum

There seems no remaining controversy about removing the airport identifier from runway naming. Not sure there ever was much, in fact I seem to recall there was agreement on this months ago given the downside of potentially populating autocomplete results with runways. So I've removed it from the Road Types (USA) guidance.

The section on selecting the airport identifier I simply commented out so it is quickly available for re-use in future guidance on naming airport Places.

The discussion on slash-vs-hyphen appears to have converged (congealed?) on hyphen due to its predominance in physical signage in situ. FAA literature such as NOTAM appears to use the slash, but our habit is to weight physical signage heavily. So I added the word "hyphen" to give additional clarity to the example.

dbraughlr wrote:As the FAA decode sheet linked above shows, FDK identifies the following:

• FREDERICK MUNI ARPT
• FREDERICK MUNI ILS RWY 23 [radio beacon]
• FREDERICK VOR [radio beacon]
• FREDERICK RCO [remote communications outlet radio]

The ICAO code KFDK identifies solely and unambiguously Frederick Municipal Airport.

This is not a flying app. At least until we get flying cars. In a car you will not be driving the ILS, or driving to the VOR, and you certainly won't be talking to the RCO.

IATA Codes work. It is what people know. It is generally what is on their baggage claim. I don't think too many people know that Heathrow is EGLL, but they probably know it as LHR.

In another thread we discussed this same issue and when I asked Waze staff about why they are routing us to the walking trail, they said they want to be able to get people to the front door if there is no road to get there.

Looking at Alan's example (which is correct based on another failure I found in San Jose just like it), it seems there is a problem with the routing currently that would favor walking 1 mile on a trail rather than parking 10 feet from the front entrance because the end of the walking trail is 5 feet from the entrance.

As for runways, I have always questioned the true purpose from Waze perspective, but assuming they want to market to pilots one day or we just want to see the airport as a landmark, we just need to be sure Waze will not include a runway as a routable segment once it appears in the client. Otherwise we will get routed to the back of the airport fence just because the runways are closer to the airport marker than the roadways in front of the terminal.

DwarfLord wrote:I really don't see anything wrong in a "soft standard" here that articulates guidance in terms of "preferred" and "acceptable alternative" approaches. A soft standard has the advantage of not suddenly throwing the work of diligent wiki-abiding editors into noncompliance, while still establishing the consensus convention.

I think in this case we can easily describe the hierarchy for editors to follow and everyone can easily identify the proper entry. I updated the Wiki (with external links) based on the above conversation:

Wiki Update wrote:Name each runway using the airport identifier, the word ''Runway'', and the runway designations with the lower number first (e.g., "SMF Runway 16R-34L".) The primary airport identifier that should be used is the IATA 3-letter code, for example "SFO", "LAX", "JFK", etc. If the airport in question is not included in that list, use the ICAO 4-letter code instead. If the airport is not included in that list use the FAA identifier.

DwarfLord wrote:This is a wiki for the US only.

Technically this is a USA page yes. However we have a lot of countries that follow the US standard exactly. Therefore when there are options that are more universal, we do our best to use the more flexible solution.

Otherwise I agree the FAA code appears to be the easier and complete solution for the US alone.

dbraughlr wrote:

sketch wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by a "dual use taxiway"; if it really is a taxiway also used as a public road, or as a small airport's parking lot, then that's fine.

Dual-use roadways in Cameron Park, California.

Good example. I added a link to the area and an image to the Road Types/USA page.

sketch wrote:Runways are displayed in 3.8.0 in the default day scheme only.

Confirmed. Although I noticed that many of the airports around me in the bay area have huge sections of the runways not displaying as if the names of the Places layer is obscuring it by about the size of a map tile. SFO is highly broken up as an example. Makes it pretty much useless as a navigation aide for a driver.

This thread is more recent than some of the other threads I've read on the subject of airports.

After making some changes to ORD (Chicago) I'd like to bounce a couple of questions/thoughts off people here.

What is the current rule-of-thumb for the elevation of runways? I was under the impression that it should always be set at a 5.

As for taxiways, I can think of one case where we might want to include them. If a taxiway crosses over a driveable road.

Example: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 3,14891361

In this case, two taxiways cross over I-190 as you enter O'Hare. It's obviously not necessary to include for navigational purposes, but it is a great visual marker. (How many places can you drive under a moving airplane?)

Just a thought.

Krikket

I've been reviewing https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Private_Installations

I think a revision may be in order when it comes to the larger airports such as O'Hare. (And if I'm reading maps correctly, there are plenty of other major airports that qualify, but I'm going to stick to O'Hare, because it's the one I'm familiar with.)

Currently it reads, "Do not map the private, restricted-access roads on airport grounds at all." ... "Airports have "air-side" restricted road networks that allow traffic for baggage carts, service vehicles, airplane fuel tankers, etc. "

I agree that the air-side restricted roads should not be mapped.

But with airports like O'Hare, there are actually TWO sets of security gates where users are checked. There are literally miles of road between these two gates that are used by airport employees that do not require special driving privileges to access.

When I started working at O'Hare, I found the area between the two gates already mapped, but needing some work. I'd like to do the work, but would hate to see it later deleted because it's technically against the guidelines on the wiki.

What do other people think on this? (And in at least this case, people can't accidentally be routed onto these roads, because there is only one exit and entrance. Nothing close enough to the public road network to cause navigational error.)

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Krikket

DwarfLord wrote:I agree, but, I can't seem to find the article about Places for airports. The Great Table in the master Places article has an entry for Airports, of course, but the only comment is "Special-handling" and it is not a link.

I can only remember two category-specific Place articles: Gas Stations and Parking Lots. I don't think guidelines for Airports were formalized into an article.

No Airport Specific Topics in Wiki Forum Either

sketch wrote:I'm going to resurrect this again. We brought up arguments but never made a change. I do not believe it is proper to include the airport code within the runway name. Also, the numbers in a runway number are, everywhere I've seen them, separated by a slash, not a hyphen.

I propose a change from, e.g., "MSY Runway 10-28", first introduced here and never changed, to, e.g., "Runway 10/28".

I agree with Marc on this. I'm OK with mapping mapping runways, but no need name them with the airport name. That will only confuse someone searching an airport. We can name them "Runway 1L/19R" etc and not the Airport name